could alcohol be outlawed without a constitutional amendment?

[freedomsoundmoney]

if not, why not? if a constitutional amendment was needed doesn't that mean that any other substance with negative effects and potential for abuse would also require such an amendment to outlaw?

[American]

Where did you come from?

I know its bad, and it should be left to the people to decide if they want to drink or not. I dont want a constitutional amendment telling me to do shit.

[libertythor]

That was the case with Prohibition back in the day when the Constitution was mostly respected.

During the New Deal Era the Supreme Court had a ruling against a chicken farmer that tried to argue that the regulations didn't apply to him because his chickens were raised and sold within the state.

The court ruled that since the feed and implements came from other states, he had to abide by the law due to interstate commerce. :mad:

If anybody remember the exact name of the case....post it.

That was this very judicial malfeasance that started the crap we are stuck in now.

Then the war on drugs began in the 60's.

[G-khan]

if not, why not? if a constitutional amendment was needed doesn't that mean that any other substance with negative effects and potential for abuse would also require such an amendment to outlaw?

Read the 1914 Harrison Act! Its on the link below. Before 1914 you could buy anything at your local drug store including heroin and cocaine.

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/studies/cu/cu8.html

This was pushed into being by the Temperance Movement and after that Prohibition of Alcohol.

[james1906]

A state could outlaw a drug. The DEA should be unconstitutional, but the interstate commerce clause is used to rationalize all sorts of silly laws.

[Hook]

It always goes back to FDR. :D

Well, let me ask you: Were assult rifles and fully automatic weapons outlawed without a constitutional amendment? Alcohol isn't explicitly guaranteed as a right in the bill of rights, but firearms are.

[libertythor]

That Harrison Act was an attempt to control its use by using an excise tax as a ruse. It still didn't prohibit the substance and wasn't anywhere close to the prohibition of drugs.

Alcohol was made illegal by a constitutional amendment. The federal government no longer felt a need for following those protocols after the New Deal set a standard. e.g. Supreme Court decision mentioned before....

[Richandler]

Anything can technically be outlawed. The problem is people are so nosey about getting in other peoples business and telling them what they can't do.

[G-khan]

That Harrison Act was an attempt to control its use by using an excise tax as a ruse. It still didn't prohibit the substance and wasn't anywhere close to the prohibition of drugs.

Alcohol was made illegal by a constitutional amendment. The federal government no longer felt a need for following those protocols after the New Deal set a standard. e.g. Supreme Court decision mentioned before....

You are correct but the Harrison Act was the start where the government got its fingers in the door. It was the start of regulation of drugs.. Temperance Movement pushed it on them to save the San Francisco Chinese opium users. They had opium dens that they wanted to close - it was a Christian movement.

Many Alcoholics before 1920 were treated with heroin in the hopes they would switch and use that instead of alcohol.

I used to be a Drug Counselor and have read this and studied it for years.

We had very few problems before they passed all the laws.

[G-khan]

Here is a History Link

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/shrthist.htm

[Hook]

You are correct but the Harrison Act was the start where the government got its fingers in the door. It was the start of regulation of drugs.. Temperance Movement pushed it on them to save the San Francisco Chinese opium users. They had opium dens that they wanted to close - it was a Christian movement.

Many Alcoholics before 1920 were treated with heroin in the hopes they would switch and use that instead of alcohol.

I used to be a Drug Counselor and have read this and studied it for years.

We had very few problems before they passed all the laws.

I don't think I'll ever go to a counselor named Genghis Kahn. :D

[G-khan]

I don't think I'll ever go to a counselor named Genghis Kahn. :D

Its Khan............. Nor I :)

[noxagol]

herion instead of alcohol, some trade. I think I'd take the alcohol.

[Matt Collins]

if not, why not? if a constitutional amendment was needed doesn't that mean that any other substance with negative effects and potential for abuse would also require such an amendment to outlaw?Only on a state-by-state basis... legally at least.

The problem is bad common law and a whole string of bad Supreme Court decisions largely starting with John Marshall.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall :mad:

[Ron Paul Fan]

They can outlaw anything they want with the interstate commerce clause! People in this thread are right when they mention the Supreme Court decisions back when FDR was President. FDR introduced his "court packing plan" which would have increased the # of justices from 9 to 15. Up until then, the Supreme Court had shot down some of FDR's socialist new deal proposals. Then Justice Owen Daniels switches sides and it opens the floodgates for everything to be regulated by interstate commerce. One theory is that they gave in to FDR because they didn't want to relinquish too much power. Today's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is not what Madison and the founders had in mind. They just wanted free trade among the states, but they certainly never could have envisioned that the federal government would gain so much power over the states. They got rid of drugs with it so why not alcohol? If Hillary wins the election, they'll give us universal health care without an amendment. How? With the interstate commerce clause! I don't think they'd ever ban alcohol again though. It would cause a huge uproar among most states, even more so than the Real ID Act(which is deemed Constitutional because of the interstate commerce clause). :)

I must say though, that the Supreme Court did issue a good ruling in U.S. v. Lopez which limited what Congress could regulate under the interstate commerce clause. I think it now has to actually involve economic activity. If they made a case for drugs in that regard, then they can make a case for alcohol.

[G-khan]

herion instead of alcohol, some trade. I think I'd take the alcohol.

Heroin is actually a lot less harmful than alcohol to your body. We are talking about addiction here. If you are truly addicted to alcohol and go cold turkey you have about 25% of dying just from withdrawal. No one ever dies from opiate type addictions.

The biggest problem that comes with opiates is caused by its illegal status. The huge underground black market it causes and how it finances gangs and their activities.

Think of it this way Prohibition of alcohol is what made Al Capone - that is the blowback when you make these things illegal.

When a person is truly addicted to heroin they take their dose of the drug just not to get sick from withdrawal. Most of the getting high from it is long gone and the high price because it is outlawed causes them to commit crimes.

Don't get me wrong I do not approve of any addiction. That being said if both were legal and I was addicted to one of them I would rather be addicted to heroin than alcohol..

Illegal drugs is the glue that holds gangs together and when they move into your area, it is to peddle their wares!

[BillyDkid]

Where did you come from?

I know its bad, and it should be left to the people to decide if they want to drink or not. I dont want a constitutional amendment telling me to do shit.I think his point is this - if we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol, why didn't we for all other illegal substances. Of course, like most libertarians I think the government has no business nannying us and telling us what we can ingest. Some people simply can not be happy unless they are telling other people how to live.

[BillyDkid]

You know what amazes me - that so many people are inclined to accept that the goverment has any business at all telling you what you can do with your own body. It's madness. It the madness of the herd.

[Ron Paul Fan]

You know what amazes me - that so many people are inclined to accept that the goverment has any business at all telling you what you can do with your own body. It's madness. It the madness of the herd.

Tell that to New York City who banned trans fats! What has this world coming to? Where has the sense of personal reponsibility gone?